Saturday, April 4, 1998Last modified at 12:51 a.m. on Saturday, April 4, 1998

Worldwide court plans progressing

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Legal experts mapping a permanent world criminal court made progress during three weeks of meetings that ended Friday - but left the tough decisions on funding, jurisdiction and a prosecutor for a conference in June.

Delegations from more than 140 governments are expected to gather in Rome June 15 to establish an international court to try such offenses as genocide and war crimes when national courts cannot or will not prosecute.

Such a court could try offenses similar to those committed during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda or the wars in the former Yugoslavia.

Temporary international tribunals were established for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. But supporters say a permanent court would serve as a strong deterrent to crimes against humanity, where perpetrators often go unpunished.

Sources close to the discussions say considerable progress has been made on such issues as the rights of the accused, double jeopardy, appeals and trial procedures.

But major differences remain and will have to be addressed in Rome. These include the role of the prosecutor, conditions under which the court would take jurisdiction, what offenses it would try and who would pay the bills.

"I expect we'll be negotiating right up until midnight July 16," said a U.S. official on condition he not be identified. "It's going to be tough. There are wide gaps on key issues." The conference adjourns on July 17.

The success of the Rome conference may depend primarily on Clinton administration, which has been one of the leading proponents of a court.

During a speech last week in Rwanda, President Clinton said the slaughter of a half-million people there "underscores the need for such a court. And the United States will work to see that it is created."

But the administration also faces strong pressure from a reluctant Congress.

In a letter last week to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Sen. Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he is "unalterably opposed" to such a court because it could erode U.S. sovereignty.

Helms added that if negotiators establish a court treaty without "a clear U.S. veto, it will be dead-on-arrival at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee." Helms wants to make sure no American would ever stand in the dock.

As chairman of the committee, Helms could singlehandedly block ratification. Human rights groups believe the White House may sign the treaty but leave it to a future administration to submit it to the Senate.

Court supporters say the draft statute has safeguards that would virtually rule out any American ever appearing before the tribunal.

The United States had insisted that the Security Council, where Washington holds a veto, refer all cases to the court. This position, however, is unpopular among non-permanent council members from Europe, Canada and elsewhere.

To overcome the differences, the United States and others have circulated other proposals on prosecutorial discretion. But U.S. officials have made clear they will oppose any formula that leaves the prosecutor free to initiate investigations without some controls by major powers.

The United States also opposes recommendations that funding come from the U.N. operating budget. Instead, Washington wants the governments who join the court to pay the bills separately from the United Nations.